TAKING SIDES ANALYSIS REPORT (LONG FORM)

Name: Danielle Pompa

Course: Human Biology 1090
Book: Taking Sides; Clashing Views in Health and Society
Issue number: 12 Title of issue: Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of
Technology?
1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side.
The author of the yes side of the argument is a political philosopher, Michael
J. Sandel. His thesis stands on the side that using genetic technology to enhance
performance or design children is a flawed attempt at human mastery, and that it
also gives loss to our appreciation of life as a gift.
2. Author and major thesis of the No side.
The presenter of the no side is physician Howard Trachtman. He believes that
the medical community should embrace genetic enhancement as it has unending
potential for health benefits. He, however, recognizes that human perfection will
never be reached.
3. What fallacies of question-framing are made by the authors of the text?
One question-framing fallacy made on the yes side is the question: Is the
scenario troubling because the unenhanced poor would be denied the benefits of
bioengineering, or because the enhanced affluent would somehow be
dehumanized? This question is framed in a way to make you admit that the ideas
he is proclaiming are troublesome and possible.
On the no side you can see that he uses question-framing when he asks:
When is failure to concentrate a sign of disease worthy of treatment and when
does it indicate a lazy student who is not willing to work hard enough in school? He
asks this question to convince the audience that it doesnt matter whether the
student is lazy or has a disorder, but that if he can improve the quality of life of
either of those students that he will.
4. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side.
A fact that was presented by the yes side was when he wrote of the off
label use of human growth-hormone. He stated that in 1996, 40 percent of this

drugs was being used for treatments unrelated to a medical need. Another fact
presented by the yes side is the use of ultrasounds as a way to detect the sex of
your child. He explains how this technology has led people to get abortions if they
are unsatisfied with the sex of their child.
A fact presented from the no side is when he explains the benefits of
erythropoietin in improving the lives of people with end stage renal disease. He uses
this as an argument that the abuse of this drug does not take away from the known
benefits when used for a medical need. Another fact presented by this author is
when he speaks of peoples refusal in immunizations and the use of alternative
medicine rather than chemotherapy. He uses this fact to describe that people are
weary of doctors advice and will most likely be weary to take certain drugs
recreationally.
5. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side.
An opinion stated on the yes side is when he speaks of life as a gift. He
believes that genetic enhancement would take away from our natural gift of life. Not
everyone may agree that life is a gift, making this an opinion of his own. The second
opinion I found presented on the yes side was his belief that giving parents the
power to engineer their children may take away from the natural love that a parent
experiences for their child, instead he believes that the parent will think of their
child as something of their creation and have ownership over. Others may disagree
with this statement. Others may think that engineering your children has nothing to
do with the love you experience for your child.
An opinion presented by the no side is his ideas of the effects that genetic
engineering could have. He, on the other hand, believes that genetic engineering
will be no different than any other medical advance. He states that there will always
be people who misuse certain drugs but that that will not take away from the
benefits that the sick or diseased my experience. Another opinion of his is that the
advancement in genetic enhancement will only lead to more questions and more
problems for humanity, which is why he believes that this is not a progression to
human perfection.
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can.

A fallacy stated on the yes side would be when the author describes
the effects that genetic enhancement could have. He states that genetic
enhancement will cause a divide in classes giving the rich the privilege to engineer
their children and the poor to be left behind. Another fallacy of his is that he says
that this division could even go as far as causing two subspecies of humans. These
beliefs are not based on any evidence of this happening therefore, these beliefs
cannot be taken as fact.

7. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.

A fallacy on the no side is his ideas of how genetic engineering will effect
humans. He believes that we may encounter problems when it comes to genetic
engineering but not anything that we cant handle. This idea is not based on any
fact. Genetic engineering may indeed cause an irreversible problem for humans. He
also has fallacies in his argument of how humans may use this technology. He
believes that humans who are looking for a quick fix may abuse certain drug
advancements but that that will not have such a large effect as far as a divide in
society. This fallacy is not based on any true ideas of how we have handled past
medical advances, instead there are many instances where medical advancements
have caused damage to individuals, even those who dont abuse it.
8. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in
presenting his or her thesis? Why?
I found that the no side author made a better presentation of his thesis. Even
though, I am more on the side of yes, I found the no side made very good
arguments. The no side author had a good way of explaining how genetic
engineering is no different than any other advancement that humanity has
underwent. He related his ideas to past events and to current events.
9. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do
they have these biases?
The author on the yes side may have a biased opinion because he is a
political philosopher. This article may influence his career and therefore he may be
appealing to what the major population agrees with.

The author on the no side may have biases because he is a physician. He is

within the medical field and maybe even a part of the research undergoing in
genetic engineering. This may make him favor the side of genetic engineering.
10. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that
you have reviewed the material in these articles? Why?
I think a combination of the two arguments is correct. I agree with the yes
side on the bases of giving humans the choice to engineer their children may have
some of the harmful effects described by the author. I also agree with the no side,
because I think that genetic enhancement can have great potential in fighting
diseases and many other medical needs. I think that we should all understand that
there are boundaries to these types of things but that that should not stop us from
advancing to help people.